One and Triune God.

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

tigger 2

Well-Known Member
Oct 19, 2017
953
438
63
85
port angeles
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
ELOHIM and the trinity

Many trinitarian apologists will tell us that the Hebrew word for God (Elohim) is plural because it shows that God is a trinity. For example:

"Among Trinitarian Christian writers it is [often] seen as evidence for the doctrine of the Trinity, a plurality in the Godhead." - Theopedia, "Elohim."
......................................................

That the Hebrew plural is often used for a singular noun to denote “a ‘plural’ of majesty or excellence” is well-known by all Biblical Hebrew language experts and has been known from at least the time of Gesenius (1786-1842), who is still regarded as one of the best authorities for Biblical Hebrew!

Gesenius’ Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament (“long regarded as a standard work for students”), p. 49, shows that elohim, (“God/gods”) is sometimes used in a numerically plural sense for angels, judges, and false gods. But it also says,

“The plural of majesty [for elohim], occurs, on the other hand, more than two thousand times.” And that elohim when used in that sense “occurs in a [numerically] singular sense” and is “constr[ued] with a verb ... and adjective in the singular.”

Gesenius - Kautzsch’s Hebrew Grammar, 1949 ed., pp. 398, 399, says:

“The pluralis excellentiae or maiestatis ... is properly a variety of the abstract plural, since it sums up the several characteristics belonging to the idea, besides possessing the secondary sense of an intensification of the original idea. It is thus closely related to the plurals of amplification .... So, especially Elohim ... ‘God’ (to be distinguished from the plural ‘gods’, Ex. 12:12, etc.) .... That the language has entirely rejected the idea of numerical plurality in Elohim (whenever it denotes one God) is proved especially by its being almost invariably joined with a singular attribute.”

Peloubet’s Bible Dictionary, 1925 ed. Pg. 224:

Elohim "is either what grammarians call the plural of majesty, or it denotes the fullness of divine strength, the sum of the powers displayed by God."

More modern publications (trinitarian Protestant and Catholic) also make similar acknowledgments of the intended plural of majesty or excellence meaning for elohim. (See the New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1967, Vol. v., p. 287.)

Nelson’s Expository Dictionary of the Old Testament, describes elohim:

“The common plural form ‘elohim,’ a plural of majesty.” - Unger and White, 1980, p. 159.

“Pluralis Majestatis: Biblical Hebrew

"The term ‘majestic plural’ or pluralis majestatis refers to the use of a plural word to refer honorifically to a single person or entity. It is also called the ‘plural of respect’, the ‘honorific plural’, the ‘plural of excellence’, or the ‘plural of intensity’. In the Hebrew Bible such plural forms are most commonly used when referring to the God of Israel, e.g., adonim ‘I am a master (lit. ‘masters’)’ (Mal. 1.6), although it can also be used when referring to a human, e.g., abraham adonaw ‘Abraham his master (lit. ‘masters’)’ (Gen. 24.9), an object, e.g. gibroteka ‘your grave (lit. ‘graves’)’ (2 Kgs 22.20), ...." - Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and Linguistics, p. 145, vol. 3, 2013.

The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia says:

“It is characteristic of Heb[rew] that extension, magnitude, and dignity, as well as actual multiplicity, are expressed by the pl[ural].” - Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1984 ed., Vol. II, p. 1265.

Today’s Dictionary of the Bible, 1982, Bethany House Publishers, written by trinitarian scholars, says of elohim:

“Applied to the one true God, it is the result in the Hebrew idiom of a plural magnitude or majesty. When applied to the heathen gods, angels, or judges ..., Elohim is plural in sense as well as form.” - p. 208.

The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures, Vol. xxi, July 1905 (Aaron Ember) tells us: “several phenomena in the universe were designated in Hebrew by plural expressions because they inspired the Hebrew mind with the idea of greatness, majesty, grandeur, and holiness.”

Ember also says:

“Various theories have been advanced to explain the use of the plural elohim as a designation of the God of Israel. least plausible is the view of the Old Theologians, beginning with Peter Lombard (twelfth century A. D.), that we have in the plural form a reference to the Trinity .... that the language of the OT has entirely given up the idea of plurality [in number] in elohim (as applied to the God of Israel) is especially shown by the fact that it is almost invariably construed with a singular verbal predicate, and takes a singular attribute.

“...elohim must rather be explained as an intensive plural denoting greatness and majesty, being equal to the Great God. It ranks with the plurals adonim [‘master,’ ‘lord’] and baalim [‘owner’, ‘lord’] employed with reference to [individual] human beings.”

The noted trinitarian scholar, Robert Young, (Young’s Analytical Concordance and Young’s Literal Translation of the Bible) wrote in his Young’s Concise Critical Commentary, p. 1,

“Heb. elohim, a plural noun ... it seems to point out a superabundance of qualities in the Divine Being rather than a plurality of persons .... It is found almost invariably accompanied by a verb in the singular number.”

Exodus 7:1 (KJV and Hebrew text) shows God calling Moses "a god" (elohim). This alone shows the error of some that the plural elohim must mean a "plural oneness" unless we want to believe Moses was a multiple-person Moses!

And The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Zondervan Publishing, 1986, tells us:

Elohim, though plural in form, is seldom used in the OT as such (i.e. ‘gods’). Even a single heathen god can be designated with the plural elohim (e.g. Jdg. 11:24; 1 Ki. 11:5; 2 Ki. 1:2). In Israel the plural is understood as the plural of fullness; God is the God who really, and in the fullest sense of the word, is God.” - p. 67, Vol. 2.

The NIV Study Bible says about elohim in its footnote for Gen. 1:1:

“This use of the plural expresses intensification rather than number and has been called the plural of majesty, or of potentiality.” – p. 6, Zondervan Publ., 1985.

And the New American Bible (St. Joseph ed.) tells us in its “Bible Dictionary” in the appendix:

ELOHIM. Ordinary Hebrew word for God. It is the plural of majesty.” – Catholic Book Publishing Co., 1970.

A Dictionary of the Bible by William Smith (Smith’s Bible Dictionary, p. 220, Hendrickson Publ.) declares:

“The fanciful idea that [elohim] referred to the trinity of persons in the Godhead hardly finds now a supporter among [real] scholars. It is either what grammarians call the plural of majesty, or it denotes the fullness of divine strength, the sum of the powers displayed by God.”

And the prestigious work edited by Hastings says about this:

"It is exegesis of a mischievous if pious sort that would find the doctrine of the Trinity in the plural form elohim [God]" ("God," Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics).

To show how ancient Jewish scholars themselves understood this we can look at the work of the seventy Hebrew scholars who translated the ancient Hebrew Scriptures (OT) into Greek several centuries before the time of Christ. The Greek language did not use the “plural of excellence” that the Hebrew did. So, if we see a plural used in the Greek Septuagint, it was really intended to represent more than one individual!

So how is elohim rendered in the Greek Septuagint by those ancient Hebrew scholars? Whenever it clearly refers to Jehovah God, it is always found to be singular in number (just as in New Testament Greek): theos ! Whenever elohim clearly refers to a plural (in number) noun, it is always found to be plural in number in Greek (just as in the New Testament Greek): theoi or theois (“gods”).

For example: “I am the Lord thy God [elohim - plural of excellence in Hebrew becomes theos - singular in the Greek Septuagint]” - Ex. 20:2. And “know that the Lord he is God [as always, the plural elohim, as applied to the God of Israel, becomes the singular, theos in the Septuagint] he made us...” - Ps. 100:3.

But when elohim really does mean plural in number, we see it rendered into the Greek plural for “gods” in the Septuagint: “Thou shalt not worship their gods [elohim in Hebrew becomes theois - plural in the Greek Septuagint], nor serve them .... And thou shalt serve the Lord thy God [singular - Greek].” - Ex. 23:24-25.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DavidB

Rich R

Well-Known Member
Mar 14, 2022
1,510
460
83
74
Julian, CA
julianbiblestudy.com
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
ELOHIM and the trinity

Many trinitarian apologists will tell us that the Hebrew word for God (Elohim) is plural because it shows that God is a trinity. For example:

"Among Trinitarian Christian writers it is [often] seen as evidence for the doctrine of the Trinity, a plurality in the Godhead." - Theopedia, "Elohim."

That the Hebrew plural is often used for a singular noun to denote “a ‘plural’ of majesty or excellence” is well-known by all Biblical Hebrew language experts and has been known from at least the time of Gesenius (1786-1842), who is still regarded as one of the best authorities for Biblical Hebrew!
Such an easy concept. It baffles me when someone would ignore that while accepting that a son and his father are one and the same person. I guess 2,000 years of the same damnable lie is hard to shake. We all know what happens when a lie is repeated often enough; it becomes the truth. Even the Communists know that and use it to their advantage. Christians are better than that though. At least I'd think so.

If God wanted Jesus to help him create man in Genesis 1:26, apparently Jesus didn't get the message, because the very next verse says, the He (singular) created them in His (singular) image.
 

DavidB

Active Member
Feb 22, 2022
296
153
43
71
Denver
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Where does it say that? Not saying it doesn't, but I don't know where.

That is indeed a verse that is hard to understand. But if we take to to say Jesus is God, we open up a huge can of worms, given the huge number of verses that would make it impossible for Jesus to be God. Start with him being called the son of God about 50 times. In order for Jesus to be God, we need to change the meaning of the words "father" and "son" since in the normal usage of words, a son can not be his own father. Then there's the whole idea that Jesus said God was greater than himself, that God knew things he didn't know, Jesus had the same God as we do, He has the same Father as we do (hence he calls us brothers. Are we brothers of God? I don't think so), the many verses that explicitly call him a man as opposed to no verses that explicitly call him God, Jesus was tempted whereas God can not be tempted, Jesus had a will that differed from God, and more. All of these verses would somehow have to fit with John 2:19. Good luck with that!

As I've said, there are a few verses that could be taken as Jesus being God. But when the few unclear contradict the many clear verses we have to make a choice. Make the few unclear fit with the many clear or visa versa. Seems pretty clear that it would be better to make John 2:19 fit with all the clear verses that make it impossible for Jesus to be God.

Any idea why John said the reason he wrote his Gospel was to show that Jesus was the Christ (the anointed one) and the son of God (John 20:31)? If he thought Jesus was God, why didn't he just say that?


We in the modern West think the word "God" always refers to YHWH, but that's not true. The Bible talks about many gods. Look up the word in Strong's and you will see it means anyone with power and authority. Since God gave Jesus power and authority (that's weird, someone giving God power and authority?) he would be considered a god. Still, he's not YHWH.

I think failing to call God by His name, YHWH, causes a lot of confusion. It is not true to say there is one god, but it is quite true to say there is only one YHWH


So every time someone says "I am" in the Bible it makes them YHWH?

As I mentioned above, all verses in John are written so that we might know that Jesus is God, oops, I mean that he is the Anointed One and the SON of God. I'm not my father, you're not your father, Adam was not his father, but somehow Jesus was his father? That would be infinitely more difficult to explain than John 2:19 not saying Jesus is God. But somehow all verses have to fit.

God bless.
This confusion was intentional.

Catechism 209
“Out of respect for the holiness of God, the people of Israel do not pronounce his name. In the reading of Sacred Scripture, the revealed name (YHWH) is replaced by the divine title "LORD" (in Hebrew Adonai, in Greek Kyrios). It is under this title that the divinity of Jesus will be acclaimed: "Jesus is LORD."
 

tigger 2

Well-Known Member
Oct 19, 2017
953
438
63
85
port angeles
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
This confusion was intentional.

Catechism 209
“Out of respect for the holiness of God, the people of Israel do not pronounce his name. In the reading of Sacred Scripture, the revealed name (YHWH) is replaced by the divine title "LORD" (in Hebrew Adonai, in Greek Kyrios). It is under this title that the divinity of Jesus will be acclaimed: "Jesus is LORD."

But they wrote the name thousands of times in the OT manuscripts.
 

DavidB

Active Member
Feb 22, 2022
296
153
43
71
Denver
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
But they wrote the name thousands of times in the OT manuscripts.
Yes they did and though they stopped saying it out loud they left it in their manuscripts. We also know now that the Tetragrammaton was originally in the Septuagint. It was the church who removed it. Why? To promote their manmade doctrine that Jesus is LORD.
 

EloyCraft

Active Member
Mar 17, 2022
553
170
43
64
Az
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
7:14 says Jesus' name will be called Immanuel. It does not say he will be Immanuel.

What If Jesus taught that He is not born of woman.? n

No one can claim that they aren't a child of Adam and
Eve, but when Jesus said there is no man born of woman greater than John.
John himself claimed he wasn't worthy to undo Jesus' sandle strap.

So...does He mean John is greater than even He is?
Or, does He mean that He's not born of woman?
 

Rich R

Well-Known Member
Mar 14, 2022
1,510
460
83
74
Julian, CA
julianbiblestudy.com
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
This confusion was intentional.

Catechism 209
“Out of respect for the holiness of God, the people of Israel do not pronounce his name. In the reading of Sacred Scripture, the revealed name (YHWH) is replaced by the divine title "LORD" (in Hebrew Adonai, in Greek Kyrios). It is under this title that the divinity of Jesus will be acclaimed: "Jesus is LORD."
You're right. The real funny part is that there mare any people called Lord in the OT. Do we now have more than 3 Gods?
 

Rich R

Well-Known Member
Mar 14, 2022
1,510
460
83
74
Julian, CA
julianbiblestudy.com
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
What If Jesus taught that He is not born of woman.? n

No one can claim that they aren't a child of Adam and
Eve, but when Jesus said there is no man born of woman greater than John.
John himself claimed he wasn't worthy to undo Jesus' sandle strap.

So...does He mean John is greater than even He is?
Or, does He mean that He's not born of woman?
Matt 11:11,

Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.​

Jesus was not referring to himself when he said, "the least in the kingdom of heaven..."

The kingdom of heaven refers to Jesus' 1,000 year reign when he will be King of Kings and Lord of Lords. All Jesus was saying, that although John was the greatest up to his time, in the future the least person in the Kingdom of Heaven will be even greater than John.

If Jesus was referring to himself, we would have trouble explaining the many clear verses I've quoted that would preclude Jesus from being God, such as God is greater than Jesus, God is the head of Jesus, Jesus will be subject to God, God knows things Jesus doesn't, Jesus has a God, Jesus was tempted (God can't be tempted), Jesus is called a man (God is not a man), Jesus had a different will than God's will, etc.

I've readily admitted many times that there are a few verses that seem to say Jesus is God, but there a none that say it as clearly as the many verses that do clearly say Jesus could not be God. I'd think the title of son of God would be enough to settle the argument, given that a son can not be his own father. In any case, all scripture must agree on the nature of God and Jesus. Jesus is either God or not in every single verse. We just have to make them all fit.

Anyway, thanks for the discussion. We'll all know for sure what's what when he does come back. Good day that'll be!
 

EloyCraft

Active Member
Mar 17, 2022
553
170
43
64
Az
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Matt 11:11,

Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.​

Jesus was not referring to himself when he said, "the least in the kingdom of heaven..."

The kingdom of heaven refers to Jesus' 1,000 year reign when he will be King of Kings and Lord of Lords. All Jesus was saying, that although John was the greatest up to his time, in the future the least person in the Kingdom of Heaven will be even greater than John.

If Jesus was referring to himself, we would have trouble explaining the many clear verses I've quoted that would preclude Jesus from being God, such as God is greater than Jesus, God is the head of Jesus, Jesus will be subject to God, God knows things Jesus doesn't, Jesus has a God, Jesus was tempted (God can't be tempted), Jesus is called a man (God is not a man), Jesus had a different will than God's will, etc.

I've readily admitted many times that there are a few verses that seem to say Jesus is God, but there a none that say it as clearly as the many verses that do clearly say Jesus could not be God. I'd think the title of son of God would be enough to settle the argument, given that a son can not be his own father. In any case, all scripture must agree on the nature of God and Jesus. Jesus is either God or not in every single verse. We just have to make them all fit.

Anyway, thanks for the discussion. We'll all know for sure what's what when he does come back. Good day that'll be!

So...does He mean John is greater than even He is?
Or, does He mean that He's not born of woman?
 

michaelvpardo

Well-Known Member
Feb 26, 2011
4,204
1,734
113
68
East Stroudsburg, PA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
If that is true, why can't we find that formula any where in the post Gospel writings? In all the verses regarding the apostles baptizing, it was ALWAYS in the name of Jesus.
Just because a verse doesn't say that the Apostles repeated the "formula" Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, doesn't mean that they didn't use such terms. To be specific, we aren't baptised into the Father, nor are we baptized into His Holy Spirit, but we are baptized into Christ and that is the language of the New Testament. However that doesn't mean we aren't baptized in the name of all three. The Son glorified the Father, the Father then glorified the Son, and the Holy Spirit is the Witness within us who glorifies the Father through the Son.

The entire 17th chapter of the gospel of John describes the relationship between the Father and Jesus the Christ as well as the Lord's request to share His glory with all His disciples, not just those present, but those who would receive Him because of the word given through the Apostles (those who believe the teaching of the New Testament.)

In the 14th chapter of John's gospel, Jesus explained the purpose of the Holy Spirit in our sanctification:
15 “If you love Me, keep My commandments. 16 And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may abide with you forever— 17 the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him; but you know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you. 18 I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you. John 14:15-18

The Lord Himself taught that the Holy Spirit was given by the Father to those who ask.
If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him!” Luke 11:13

The Apostle Paul went into great depth on the working of His Spirit within us throughout his Epistles. The Apostle John teaches that He, the Holy Spirit, is the Witness of Christ within us. And Jesus taught that the Holy Spirit was sent by the Father.

26 “But when the Helper comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify of Me. 27 And you also will bear witness, because you have been with Me from the beginning. John 15:26-27

Jesus always spoke of the Holy Spirit as a person.
But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you. John 14:26

Now, if the person of the Holy Spirit is less than God, why is the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit the only unforgivable sin?
31 “Therefore I say to you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven men. 32 Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come. Matthew 12:31-32

"And without controversy great
is the mystery of godliness: God was manifested in the flesh, Justified in the Spirit, Seen by angels, Preached" among the Gentiles, Believed on in the world, Received up in glory.
1 Timothy 3:16
 

michaelvpardo

Well-Known Member
Feb 26, 2011
4,204
1,734
113
68
East Stroudsburg, PA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Such an easy concept. It baffles me when someone would ignore that while accepting that a son and his father are one and the same person. I guess 2,000 years of the same damnable lie is hard to shake. We all know what happens when a lie is repeated often enough; it becomes the truth. Even the Communists know that and use it to their advantage. Christians are better than that though. At least I'd think so.

If God wanted Jesus to help him create man in Genesis 1:26, apparently Jesus didn't get the message, because the very next verse says, the He (singular) created them in His (singular) image.
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. 4 In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.
John 1:1-5
You don't understand this because you remain in darkness.
 

tigger 2

Well-Known Member
Oct 19, 2017
953
438
63
85
port angeles
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
[QUOTE="michaelvpardo, post: 1266084, member: 3644


"And without controversy great
is the mystery of godliness: God was manifested in the flesh, Justified in the Spirit, Seen by angels, Preached" among the Gentiles, Believed on in the world, Received up in glory.
1 Timothy 3:16[/QUOTE]

1 Tim. 3:16 ("God was manifest in the flesh")


As this is translated in the KJV it makes Paul say that Jesus is God "manifest in the flesh."

Although the KJV translates 1 Tim. 3:16 with "God" as above, nearly all other translations today use a word which refers, not to God, but to Jesus: "he" (NIV; RSV; NRSV; JB; NJB; REB; NAB [`70]; AT; GNB; CBW; and Beck's translation), "he who" (ASV; NASB; NEB; MLB; BBE; Phillips; and Moffatt), "who," or "which." Even the equally old Douay version has "which was manifested in the flesh." All the very best modern NT texts by trinitarian scholars (including Westcott and Hort, Nestle, and the text by the United Bible Societies) have the NT Greek word oV ("who") here instead of qeoV ("God"). Why do the very best trinitarian scholars support this NON-trinitarian translation of 1 Tim. 3:16?[7(Bottom of Page)]

Noted trinitarian Bible scholar Dr. Frederick C. Grant writes:

“A capital example [of NT manuscript changes] is found in 1 Timothy 3:16, where ‘OS’ (OC or ὃς, ‘who’) was later taken for theta sigma with a bar above, which stood for theos (θεὸς, ‘god’). Since the new reading suited …. the orthodox doctrine of the church [trinitarian, at this later date], it got into many of the later manuscripts – though the majority even of Byzantine manuscripts still preserved the true reading.” – p. 656, Encyclopedia Americana, vol. 3, 1957 ed. (This same statement by Dr. Grant was still to be found in the latest Encyclopedia Americana that I examined – the 1990 ed., pp.696-698, vol. 3.)

A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament by the United Bible Societies (1971 ed.) tells why the trinitarian UBS Committee chose ὃς [‘who’ or ‘he who’] as the original reading in their NT text for this verse:

“it is supported by the earliest and best uncials.” And, “Thus, no uncial (in the first hand [by the ORIGINAL writer]) earlier than the eighth or ninth century supports θεὸς [“God”]; all ancient versions presuppose ὃς [or OC, “who” - masc.] or [“which” - neut.]; and no patristic writer prior to the last third of the fourth century [370 A.D.] testifies to the reading θεὸς. The reading θεὸς arose either (a) accidentally, through the misreading of OC as ΘC, or (b) deliberately....” - p. 641.

In actuality it appears to be a combination of both (with the emphasis on the latter). You see, the word ὃς was written in the most ancient manuscripts as OC (“C” being a common form for the ancient Greek letter “S” at that time). Most often at this time the word for God (θεὸς) was written in abbreviated form as ΘC. However, to show that it was an abbreviated form a straight line, or bar, was always drawn above ΘC. So no copyist should have mistaken ὃς (or OC) for ΘC, in spite of their similarities, simply because of the prominent bar which appeared over the one and not over the other.

What may have happened was discovered by John J. Wetstein in 1714. As he was carefully examining one of the oldest NT manuscripts then known (the Alexandrine Manuscript in London) he noticed at 1 Tim. 3:16 that the word originally written there was OC but that a horizontal stroke from one of the words written on the other side of the manuscript showed through very faintly in the middle of the O. This still would not qualify as an abbreviation for θεὸς, of course, but Wetstein discovered that some person at a much later date and in a different style from the original writer had deliberately added a bar above the original word! Anyone copying from this manuscript after it had been deliberately changed would be likely to incorporate the counterfeit ΘC [with bar above it] into his new copy (especially since it reflected his own trinitarian views)!

Of course, since Wetstein’s day many more ancient NT manuscripts have been discovered and none of them before the eighth century A.D. have been found with ΘC (“God”) at this verse!

Trinitarian scholar Murray J. Harris also concludes:

“The strength of the external evidence favoring OC [‘who’], along with considerations of transcriptional and intrinsic probability, have prompted textual critics virtually unanimously to regard OC as the original text, a judgment reflected in NA(26) [Nestle-Aland text] and UBS (1,2,3) [United Bible Societies text] (with a ‘B’ rating) [also the Westcott & Hort text]. Accordingly, 1 Tim 3:16 is not an instance of the Christological [‘Jesus is God’] use of θεὸς.” - Jesus as God, p. 268, Baker Book House, 1992.

And very trinitarian (Southern Baptist) NT Greek scholar A. T. Robertson wrote about this scripture:

He who (hos [or OC in the original text]). The correct text, not theos (God) the reading of the Textus Receptus ... nor ho (neuter relative [pronoun]), agreeing with [the neuter] musterion [‘mystery’] the reading of Western documents.” - p. 577, Vol. 4, Word Pictures in the New Testament, Broadman Press.
And even hyper-trinitarian NT Greek scholar, Daniel B. Wallace uses the relative pronoun ὃς (‘who’) in this scripture and tells us:

“The textual variant θεὸς [‘god’] in the place of ὃς[‘who’ or ‘he who’] has been adamantly defended by some scholars, particularly those of the ‘majority text’ school. Not only is such a reading poorly attested [8], but the syntactical argument that ‘mystery’ (μυστήριον) being a neuter noun, cannot be followed by the masculine pronoun (ὃς) is entirely without weight. As attractive theologically [for trinitarians, of course] as the reading θεὸς may be, it is spurious. To reject it is not to deny the deity of Christ, of course; it is just to deny any explicit reference in this text.” [italicized emphasis is by Wallace]. - pp. 341-342, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, Zondervan, 1996.

The correct rendering of 1 Tim. 3:16, then, is: “He who was revealed in the flesh ….” - NASB. Cf. ASV; RSV; NRSV; NAB; JB; NJB; NIV; NEB; REB; ESV; Douay-Rheims; TEV; CEV; BBE; NLV; God’s Word; New Century Version; Holman NT; ISV NT; Lexham English Bible; The Message; Weymouth; Moffatt; etc.

Even if we were to insist that those later manuscripts that used theos were, somehow, correct, we would have to recognize that it is the anarthrous (without the definite article) theos which we find. This is rarely, if ever, the form used for the only true God (when the known exceptions are taken into account). Instead, it either points to the probability that it is a corrupted os (which of course would not have the article in the first place), or, less probable, but still possible, that Christ is being called "a god" - see my BOWGOD and DEF studies.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DavidB

Rich R

Well-Known Member
Mar 14, 2022
1,510
460
83
74
Julian, CA
julianbiblestudy.com
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
So...does He mean John is greater than even He is?
Or, does He mean that He's not born of woman?
Honestly, I'm not sure abut that. Obviously both John and Jesus had a mother. But I do know whatever it says, it can't contradict the many crystal clear verses that would make it quite impossible for Jesus to be God. It certainly does not say in clear cut terms that Jesus is God.

Matt 11:11-12,

11 Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.

12 And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force.​

I'm not sure what verse 12 says either. I do know that if don't learn exactly what they mean before Jesus comes back, I'll know it then.
 

Rich R

Well-Known Member
Mar 14, 2022
1,510
460
83
74
Julian, CA
julianbiblestudy.com
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. 4 In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.
John 1:1-5
You don't understand this because you remain in darkness.
The word "Word" is the Greek word logos. Have you done any study on exactly what logos means?

If it says Jesus is God, then it directly contradicts John's reason for writing his Gospel.

John 20:31,

But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.
John said he wrote his Gospel, not that we might believe Jesus is God. That's not what it says. Christ means "the anointed one." If Jesus is God then somebody anointed God. Any idea on who that might be? Seems like whoever it was has more power than God.

John also wrote that we might know that Jesus is the Son of God. To make a son his own father makes words meaningless. God refined every word 7 times. He know as well as you and I that a son and his father are two distinctly different people. There's nothing in the scriptures that indicates God changed the meaning of those two words, That unintelligible idea is found in Babylonian literature though, and that is where we must go to say Jesus is God. That is the darkness, my friend. God's word is light. If God says Jesus is His son, that ought to be good enough. No need to introduce Pagan doctrine into the scriptures. I don't care if it is a 2,000 year old tradition. I wouldn't care if it's a 10 million year tradition.

Matt 15:6,

And honour not his father or his mother, [he shall be free]. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.​

One thing is certain, John 1:1 one does NOT say, "In the beginning was Jesus, and Jesus was with God, and Jesus was God." God could have said that, but He didn't. We should read what He said instead of substituting words.
 

BreadOfLife

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2017
21,656
3,591
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
The word "Word" is the Greek word logos. Have you done any study on exactly what logos means?

If it says Jesus is God, then it directly contradicts John's reason for writing his Gospel.

John 20:31,

But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.
John said he wrote his Gospel, not that we might believe Jesus is God. That's not what it says. Christ means "the anointed one." If Jesus is God then somebody anointed God. Any idea on who that might be? Seems like whoever it was has more power than God.

John also wrote that we might know that Jesus is the Son of God. To make a son his own father makes words meaningless. God refined every word 7 times. He know as well as you and I that a son and his father are two distinctly different people. There's nothing in the scriptures that indicates God changed the meaning of those two words, That unintelligible idea is found in Babylonian literature though, and that is where we must go to say Jesus is God. That is the darkness, my friend. God's word is light. If God says Jesus is His son, that ought to be good enough. No need to introduce Pagan doctrine into the scriptures. I don't care if it is a 2,000 year old tradition. I wouldn't care if it's a 10 million year tradition.

Matt 15:6,

And honour not his father or his mother, [he shall be free]. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.​

One thing is certain, John 1:1 one does NOT say, "In the beginning was Jesus, and Jesus was with God, and Jesus was God." God could have said that, but He didn't. We should read what He said instead of substituting words.
ALL of your nonsesne rests onb the last part above in RED.

You are corectr that John 1:1 doesn't mention the name of "Jesus".
HOWEVER - only an illiterate would NOT be able to understand that the entire CONTCT of who is being spoken of here IS Jesus.

John 1:1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

A few verses later . . .
John 1:14

And the Word (GOD) became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen HIS glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth. (John bore witness about HIM, and cried out, “This was he of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me ranks before me, because he was before me.’”) For from his fullness we have all received, grace upon grace. For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father's side, he has made him known.

So – the “Word” being spoken of here, who has already been established as “GOD” in verse 1 – is Jesus.
And NONE of your pretending can change this fact.

Case CLOSED.
 
  • Like
Reactions: michaelvpardo

Rich R

Well-Known Member
Mar 14, 2022
1,510
460
83
74
Julian, CA
julianbiblestudy.com
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
ALL of your nonsesne rests onb the last part above in RED.

You are corectr that John 1:1 doesn't mention the name of "Jesus".
HOWEVER - only an illiterate would NOT be able to understand that the entire CONTCT of who is being spoken of here IS Jesus.

John 1:1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

A few verses later . . .
John 1:14

And the Word (GOD) became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen HIS glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth. (John bore witness about HIM, and cried out, “This was he of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me ranks before me, because he was before me.’”) For from his fullness we have all received, grace upon grace. For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father's side, he has made him known.

So – the “Word” being spoken of here, who has already been established as “GOD” in verse 1 – is Jesus.
And NONE of your pretending can change this fact.

Case CLOSED.
WOW! You might want to consider polishing your diplomacy skills a bit.
 
Last edited:

BreadOfLife

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2017
21,656
3,591
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
WOW! You might want to consider polishing your diplomacy skills a bit.
Why?
YOU
keep going from thread to thread trying to pass off this nonsense as the fact - even AFTER you've been shown the truth of Scripture.

You're not interested in the truth - so I've made it my mission to expose this kind of stuff so that other people don't get sucked in to your errors.
 
  • Like
Reactions: michaelvpardo

michaelvpardo

Well-Known Member
Feb 26, 2011
4,204
1,734
113
68
East Stroudsburg, PA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
The word "Word" is the Greek word logos. Have you done any study on exactly what logos means?

If it says Jesus is God, then it directly contradicts John's reason for writing his Gospel.

John 20:31,

But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.
John said he wrote his Gospel, not that we might believe Jesus is God. That's not what it says. Christ means "the anointed one." If Jesus is God then somebody anointed God. Any idea on who that might be? Seems like whoever it was has more power than God.

John also wrote that we might know that Jesus is the Son of God. To make a son his own father makes words meaningless. God refined every word 7 times. He know as well as you and I that a son and his father are two distinctly different people. There's nothing in the scriptures that indicates God changed the meaning of those two words, That unintelligible idea is found in Babylonian literature though, and that is where we must go to say Jesus is God. That is the darkness, my friend. God's word is light. If God says Jesus is His son, that ought to be good enough. No need to introduce Pagan doctrine into the scriptures. I don't care if it is a 2,000 year old tradition. I wouldn't care if it's a 10 million year tradition.

Matt 15:6,

And honour not his father or his mother, [he shall be free]. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.​

One thing is certain, John 1:1 one does NOT say, "In the beginning was Jesus, and Jesus was with God, and Jesus was God." God could have said that, but He didn't. We should read what He said instead of substituting words.
Come to the light.
 

tigger 2

Well-Known Member
Oct 19, 2017
953
438
63
85
port angeles
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Here is a list of all the proper uses in John’s writings of the constructions which are parallel to John 1:1c (predicate noun without article found before the verb). It properly omits those which use prepositional or possessive modifiers or non-count nouns (‘honesty,’ ‘bronze,’ ‘oatmeal,’ etc.).


H….. John 4:9 (a)

H,W... John 4:19

H,W... John 6:70

H,W... John 8:44 (a)

H,W... John 8:48

H,W... John 9:8 (a)

H,W ...John 9:17

H,W... John 9:24

H,W John 9:25

H,W... John 10:1

H,W John 10:13

H,W... John 10:33

H,W .. John 12:6

H,W... John 18:35

H,W... John 18:37 (a)

H,W.. John 18:37 (b) - Received Text and 1991 Byzantine text

H,W .. John 8:44 (b)

….… 1 John 4:20


H: Also found in Harner's list of "Colwell Constructions"
W: Also found in Wallace's list of "Colwell Constructions"

Please show where any of them are clearly ‘understood’ to have the definite article (‘the’) with the predicate noun. Are there any trinitarian translators that use the article with the predicate noun with any of these? Or do they use "a" or "an" with them?

John 1:1c, according to John's own usage, should be "a god."

"a god" - Examining the Trinity: God and gods (from BOWGOD study)
 
  • Like
Reactions: DavidB

Rich R

Well-Known Member
Mar 14, 2022
1,510
460
83
74
Julian, CA
julianbiblestudy.com
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Why?
YOU
keep going from thread to thread trying to pass off this nonsense as the fact - even AFTER you've been shown the truth of Scripture.

You're not interested in the truth - so I've made it my mission to expose this kind of stuff so that other people don't get sucked in to your errors.
Go for it! It's not as though nobody else has ever tried to shut me down, and yet I'm still here. :)
 
Last edited: